Frequently Asked Questions

_________________________________________________

“What is your position on Gay Marriage?”

A: As advocates of total government non-involvement in the practice of marriage, we do not want the state stepping in to either mandate or prohibit such unions.  Religious societies should be free to determine whether to perform ceremonies of this nature or not, based on their priorities and beliefs.  Individuals should be free to form contractual relationships as they voluntarily choose.

“Won’t your efforts hurt traditional marriage?”

A:  We believe the history of government involvement in marriage demonstrates that it has become a much less revered and respected institution as government has become involved.  Government marriage licensing has arisen from priorities like preventing interracial marriages, determining how to allocate government benefits and other issues but rarely from such idealistic priorities as preserving traditional values.  It is no coincidence that as what was for much of history a private religious ceremony has been taken over by the state, the general reverence for the marital institution has declined.

“Don’t we need government involved to make sure that marriages can be terminated fairly?”

A:  Because marriage would be a private contract, government courts (through civil cases) would still have a role in addressing restitution for the breech of a contract.  This is very different from the role which government currently takes of granting the permission for individuals to enter the contract at all or defining the partnership based on its own terms.

“Shouldn’t government play a role in making sure marriages are safe for children?”

A: Government involvement in marriage licensing rarely, if ever, pretends to be for the purpose of preventing marriages that are unsafe for children.  Given the status quo and the fact that existing situations of abuse within married families are all happening within government-sanctioned marriages, it certainly fails in this regard.  We believe that an act of harm or immediate serious endangerment of a child is a proper basis for criminal action against the perpetrator, or intervention to stop an immediate threat.  This should happen through normal channels of criminal prosecution.  These actions, though they require certain legal standards of evidence and due process, do not depend upon the involvement of government in the marriage agreement itself or the existence of a license, for jurisdiction to intervene.